At the recent Modern Language Association Meeting held last December
in Chicago, the American Literature Section of the organization sponsored
a well-attended program (chaired by James H. Justus of Indiana University)
on the subject of "The Canon and American Literature: The Anthology.
" At this session, much-debated current issues of theory, pedagogy,
and philosophy came up against the practical and logistical concerns of
anthology production. Three editors of major, existing two-volume anthologies
of American literature presented their opinions and recounted their experiences
in creating textbooks that would serve instructors' and students' needs
but also set forth a clear, informing vision of what American Literature
is.

Hershel Parker of the University of Delaware and an editor of The
Norton Anthology of American Literature, Third Edition, in a paper
entitled "The Puissance and Pusillanimity of the Anthology Editor,"
discussed the history of his text, begun back in the mid-70s, and the views
of his editorial colleagues. Stating that he is understanding of and sympathetic
to many of the new voices currently being proposed for inclusion in texts,
he asserted that The Norton Anthology has, since its first edition,
continually added and substituted new writers, including works by people
of color and women, and would continue to do so in a careful and critically
responsible way. He also said that a primary concern of the editorial board
was that writers and selections be added to new editions of The Norton
Anthology not merely for the sake of representing a number of different
political or minority constituencies. Rather, writers were, of necessity,
to be judged primarily on their literary merit.

Speaking next, Martha Banta of the University of California at Los Angeles,
discussed "Packaging and Principles: The Making of an Anthology,"
based on her experience in editing The Harper American Literature.
Professor Banta spoke of the practical difficulties of preparing a comprehensive
anthology. For one thing, the intentions of an editorial board often come
into conflict with the publisher's picture of the existing marketplace,
and this difference may require the editors to make some compromises in
selecting texts. Or changes in staff at a publishing house might result
in a changed viewof how to market a particular text or a different degree
of commitment to a project.

Further, even when literary works are selected, seeking reprint rights
from authors, estates, literary agents, and other publishing houses frequently
presents difficulties that may affect the selections. For example, it is
almost impossible for an anthology to print more than a single Hemingway
story because the rights-holder refuses to allow more material to be used.
In other cases, some publishers may have negotiated exclusive rights to
major works, thus leaving other publishers to choose from only minor or
second-rank work by major authors. Even when a rights-holder may be willing
to allow material to be used, the fee for such material may be exorbitant.
Since American literature anthologies tend to use much material that is
either still in copyright or is best represented by a standard edition
(as with the CEAA editions of such authors as Melville, Twain, etc.) that
also would require permission, the fees to be paid for reprint rights (and
these are typically shared by author and publisher) easily exceed six figures.
These costs must be balanced against expected sales of the text, as well
as the huge composition and materials costs. Thus, every decision needs
to be studied in terms of a selection's representativeness of the author
in question and the permissions budget for the text (Professor Banta noted
that of the $750,000 required to bring The Harper American Literature
to print, $150,000 of this went toward permissions fees, and text authors
generally have a substantial share of such fees deducted from earned royalties.)

In discussing "The Making of the Heath Anthology,"
Paul Lauter of Trinity College described what he thought was the tremendous
value of putting together an anthology with the contribution and participation
of hundreds of scholars. He stated thatthe Heath Anthology of
American Literature frankly embodies a political vision, one growing
out of the civil rights and women's movements, that challenges the authoritative
structures of individualism that mark American culture. The thesis of this
anthology, therefore, is not that the white male writers studied
are unworthy of close reading and careful discussion. Rather, the anthology
presents a wide range of "other" voices whose works may have
been suppressed, unsupported, or even unpublished, but who have created
expressions of particular experiences that do have a place in American
culture and which, when studied alongside the writings of the traditional,
"classic" figures, provide students with a broader and more real
idea of the sweep of American literature.

In addition to providing what he hopes will be a useful, practical,
and comprehensive textbook for the American literature survey course, Professor
Lauter also feels thatthe Heath Anthology allows, as no
other text does, for the posing of certain central questions of literary
study: "What is art?" "Who decides?" and "What
functions does art perform, and for and against, whom?"

Responding to the papers, Professor Glen M. Johnson of Catholic University
of America offered some statistical data to suggest that the "new"
anthologies were not really all that new, and that the amount of space
in American literature anthologies that is currently devoted to the "dead
white males" of the established canon is pretty much the same as it
has been for some time. What has grown, he said, was the actual size of
the anthologies, and the added pages were being given over to women and
minority writers, but these writers were typically given quite brief space
each, while the "major" authors continued to be represented by
large numbers of pages and, in some cases, complete novel-length works.
Professor Lauter's rejoinder to this assertion was that studying mere numbers
of pages was an ahistorical way of looking at these textbooks. Rather,
the context in which new writers were added to anthologies and the headnotes
or thematic groupings that were created to contextualize these writers
represented a major breakthrough. The new writers are not sequestered in
the corners of a genuinely "new" anthology but rather have been
placed in historical and topical relation to long-honored work of much-studied
writers.

(Editor's Note: The size and attention of the audience at this session,
the emotion and force with which the papers were delivered, and the publication
of two new anthologies of American literature this year, one by Prentice
Hall and one by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, assure members of the field
of one sure thing: the debate will most certainly continue.)